Space Sims: Background Nebulas&Lighting

L

Lynx

Spaceman
I just looked on the screenshots of Star Giants. They reminded me of the times were computer games were better. [sniff!]

But the main question: What do you like more in space sims?
A black and starry background with some planets and/ or small nebulas like the older space sims, or the super-duper background effects of new space games?

Is it only me or looked the graphics in the older space sims much brighter, more friendly and more colorful than in the newer games? (compare WC:p and older WC's) The graphics of most newer 3d games look somehow sterile.
 
I liked the old version of space better :p

I think the giant nebulas that are all around you like the (extremely half-assed) nebulas in Freespace 1, or the nicer looking ones in WCP and SO are overused.

An example of the type of space background I really like can be found in XWA... which is basically WC2 with higher-res graphics. A few planets here and there, the ocassional small, far away nebula, and other little effects... but mostly, just a black background with stars.

It'd be nice if XWA could support WCA-style rotating planets... I thought that was a really neat effect in WCA, even though the planets seemed to rotate too fast, but that was probably because they couldn't use 3600 different sprites for each planet.

As for the lightning, though, the method I like best is the WCP method, where there are two infinite lights pointing in opposite directions, each one with a different color. Some of the colored lightning in other space sims (XWA comes to mind, in particular) is too overused... and some other methods, like Starlancer's, make the ships' textures look too sterile and opaque, IMHO.

--Eder
 
They should be done like in I-War 2. They should be there in their very large and pretty shape, but the distance to it should be respected in-flight.

I'm sorry I can't express myself properly, I'm fairly tired but i'm taking a break from studying by posting (which I've been doing a lot lately), so my mind's pretty hazy.
 
I prefer the 'blackness of space' look myself. I can see having a nebula and/or galaxy in the background, but in most systems, that should be it. One or two systems might be particularly close to a nebula, and in those cases I think having one quadrent ONLY of the background have color would be nice. Missions that are specifically set in a nebula (for example, a number of Freespace 2 missions) are another matter entirely, but you're not exactly in deepspace there.
The worst offender, imho, is Independence War 2, which not only has systems with really weird color schemes (brown light, anyone?), but plasters the color over everything in the system, including the ships. Yes, the primary (and any minor stars) will reflect some light back, but none of the planets in our own solar system look yellow.
 
I thought it looked pretty neat. Even if it wasn't realistic, imagine what it would look like if it was. I really like I-war in-game graphics (does I-war 2 get into Sol? Haven't played through it completely, so...)
 
I like a background with just stars and planets, I don't like having all the wispy nebulas like in WCP and SO (I turn textured space off). I think it looks too cluttered with all that stuff, (ex. having a nebula every system you travel to (wcp+so).
 
Originally posted by Talyn 83
(does I-war 2 get into Sol? Haven't played through it completely, so...)
Click to expand...

No, I-War 2 never leaves the cluster (the entire cluster can be seen in-game by looking at the star map). The first game has a few missions in Sol, however, and its also not uncommon to start a game docked to the Salt Lake City STC (and the high-speed system drive is the LDS drive - probably a dev joke) and head elsewhere.

The annoying thing (to me, anyway) is that with current technologies, it would probably be fairly easy to set up a near photo-realistic backdrop for a space combat sim (complete with the Milky Way). But everyone is so focused on the 'colored dust clouds' look that I doubt we'll see one any time in the near future.


On an only loosely related topic, it appears that our good Kilrathi buddy Melek has found work with a new employer (since Origin/EA quit returning his calls). While playing Everquest the other night with my brand new Vah'Shir (in-game technical term for humanoid feline nobility) I spotted him working the counter at a local shop.
 
Coloured lighting is overused in most games like Eder said (WCP is a good example :p ) .

The next question (This would be enough to discuss to start a new thread, but I'm lazy:) ): What do you like more: 3d planets or bitmapped planets?
 
Bitmapped planets are fine, I think. You're not going to spend much of your time admiring the scenery, are you? I would have preferred it if the planets were in front, not behind the nebulas in WCP/SO, though.

I think space looks better as it should be - mostly black except for some stars and the odd planet, comet or other celestial feature. Maybe even recognisable features like the Pleides(?) or the Horsehead nebula, even if they only look that way because of the perspective from Earth. Whoops, that's pretty much what Eder said.

Perhaps in the nebula/pulsar missions in WC3/4, it could be nice to have the thick nebulae seen in Homeworld.

Originally posted by Eder
...where there are two infinite lights...
Click to expand...
Um, isn't "two infinite" an oxymoron? Or did you mean that the light sources were infinite?
 
I played I-War one too, ya know. Then why did you say?
Yes, the primary (and any minor stars) will reflect some light back, but none of the planets in our own solar system look yellow.
Click to expand...

Or did I misunderstand? (that's probably the most logical explanation as I'm not thinkin' straight)
 
I like the mostly-black schemes they used in Privateer 2 and that old Playstation [1] game Colony Wars. The background was primarily the basic black-with-stars look, with the occasional close "sun" star being extremely bright so you almost have to look away from your monitor--with the lens flare, it seemed very realistic (not that I've been in space, mind you! ;) ). I think that 3D planets would be cool, too, (a la Priv2), but done at an I-War 2-quality resolution; personally, I found that the HUGE eye-candy planets in I-War 2 detracted from the whole gameplay experience.

I agree, the "colored dust clouds" thing is WAY overused; I'd prefer some nice "thick" nebulae and debris clouds like in Homeworld, like Wedge mentioned.

I miss the old WC1/2-style space debris, too. You know, when you'd pump a few laser/mass driver/whatever rounds into an enemy ship's hull, and you'd see twisted metal and bolts come pouring out? I preferred that effect very much to the black-and-red chunks that WC3/4 replaced it with.
 
Originally posted by Wedge009
Um, isn't "two infinite" an oxymoron? Or did you mean that the light sources were infinite?
Click to expand...

Yes, and yes. :)

You can see this pretty clearly in the WCP "Object Viewer", or whatever that thing right next to the Killboard is called. There you can choose the color for the "Ambient light" and for the "Light source", or some other names to that effect. Anyway, this Object Viewer shows things exactly like they are in the missions. You got two lights, which have no fall off with distance (thus, infinite) and point in exactly opposite directions, so that nothing is ever pitch black, unless one of the lights themselves has 0 intensity.

Personally, I haven't seen any other game use such a cheap (resource-wise) way of lighting things up without making everything look like crap. :)

Edit: Oh, as for the planet thing... I'd go with bitmapped planets all the way, no matter how state of the art the game's engine is, having overfaced spheres floating around are a tremendous waste of resources. I think 3d planets should only be used in situations where you can actually fly around them (like in P2), instead of simply for background graphics (like in starlancer... what a waste... all those 200 polygon ships flying near 10000000 polygon planets that they were never supposed to get to).

--Eder
 
The problem with WCP lighting was that it casted no shadows, and was therefore also visible in the launch bay.
Oddly enough, they did turn it off for the landing animation, so it wasn't visible in the landing bay.
I prefer space to look real. Why not dump a few Hubble photo's in the background (which is otherwise indeed mostly black with stars). Nebula's are fine, but were indeed too omnipresent in Prophecy (and too close too).
You shouldn't see more than one planet (and perhaps a few moons) because unless you're in a star system with a weird distribution of mass, you'll never be close enought to two planets at once to discern both as more than bright stars.
Also, if you can see a planet, there must also be a sun nearby. That's seams to be quite often missing.
Considering even modern cards can render only about 65536 triangles in a single scene (I know that's the max for my GeForce DDR), so 3D-planets for use as background is horrible resource wasting. So that's a definite no.
 
The WCP lighting was odd. I didn't even know before that there is DARK red light. Even near a red giant, the light would be only a bit reddish, not as in WCP.
One of the problems of the WCP nebulae is that they are extremely low res.
 
If you want photorealistic backgrounds in space games, the best example and the only immediate fix I know of is some method to insert the high-resolution Hubble photos of star nursereys into Homeworld. Looks great always, extremely spectacular during the Kadesh missions.
 
Well that's something I never even thought about trying... sounds pretty cool though.

How'd you do it?
 
Hmmm.... I'm gonna look for some pics on the net, then I'll try them with the 4 space combat games I know how to edit... to see if any one looks any good (WCP probably won't, it uses very low-res space textures :()

--Eder
 
Originally posted by Talyn 83
I played I-War one too, ya know. Then why did you say?


Or did I misunderstand? (that's probably the most logical explanation as I'm not thinkin' straight)
Click to expand...

My comment that you quoted is in regards to the second game, not the first (first one isn't mentioned until a later post). In the second game (as opposed to the first, iirc) each solar system is doused in a shade of green, brown, or some other color that's consistant with the system. My comment was just pointing out that it takes something away from the visual realism. After all, our own Solar System, which has a yellow sun, isn't bathed in a yellow glow. Instead, space is pretty much black out there.

Unforgiven mentioned missing suns in many games. Reminds me of the first time I showed Freespace off to friends. FS has suns in every system, along with glare from the sun, and the first time I showed the game to friends, I had my view pointing toward the sun, and couldn't figure out why the view was so bad...
 
Originally posted by junior

After all, our own Solar System, which has a yellow sun, isn't bathed in a yellow glow. Instead, space is pretty much black out there.
Click to expand...

Ah, now i see. FS did pretty good on the sunlight. I found it a very enjoyable game (though as most space sims other than WC, it lacked proper story-developement)

Edit: I-war had a very well developed story too. Can't believe I forgot it the first time round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top